Aug 6th B738 and Glider Near Miss. Frankfurt

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Peter

I was not suggesting it be mandatory (actually the reverse - voluntary
adoption where needed to avoid blanket regulations), I was just
surprised it does not seem to be listed as something that was
encouraged locally. And I understand the extra cost of the
installations in Europe thanks to EASA bureaucracy.

BTW I think it is entirely reasonable for glider communities
especially in key locations in Europe to approach carriers like
Ryanair and try to seek some help in offsetting transponder costs.
This may be plausible where there is a noticeable change on the part
of one airline. A potentially tricky situation to handle, but
companies like Ryanair should be aware of the hazards of them not
taking action extend beyond the loss of one of their aircraft,
especially if approached by the glider community with a reasonable
proposal.

Darryl

Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
non-protected airspace.

The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. I
could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
legal action from the airworthiness police.

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
orgnisation.

At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
=A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
glide=
rs
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
"protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.


Darryl

On Oct 11, 2:19*pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 22:55, Darryl Ramm wrote:



On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, Peter
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
* * I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2 gliders
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, * *wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well. A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and *surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred) are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsrück
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation) about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. *Also the situatuion of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more "protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the *rule "see and be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

Darryl,

in Germany, for many years because of the pure separation of commercial
traffic and gliders by the different airspace they use, there was no
need for transponders in gliders.

In the last years, this has changed a bit, as more and more airports are
beeing used by commercial carriers that serve the German market on top
of the traditional "state airline" Lufthansa, and more and more
restricted airspaces appear on the maps. You see more transponders in
gliders now, and there are talks about making them mandatory.

In fact, the Netherlands have tried to do this, but have after a few
weeks asked the glider pilots to switch them off again near some major
airports, because ATC just had a black cloud on there radar screens...

But ambitioned XC pilots have more possibilities with transponders,
because it is possible to get clearances for airspace that otherwise
would not be usable by a glider, so if you have the money and the
ambition, you'll get a transponder sooner or later.

I think it will take some more years to make it common for XC flights,,
but we try to avoid to make it mandatory, as it would make the
traditional glider instruction in clubs a lot more expensive, many clubs
wouldnT survive this. It's not only € 2000 for the transpionder itself,
you have to get it installed and certified for each glider. This would
exceed the value of many gliders used in training nowadays.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

I meant also to add that I am a bit worried when I see the Schiphol
TMA brought up as a reason not to utilize transponders or encourage
their adoption in gliders. Did local ATC express concerns that if
gliders locally all adopted Mode S transponders that there would be
similar problems?

The problem at Schiphol was just overload of information on the
controllers displays and really should have been caught by the Dutch
regulators before requiring mandatory transponder carriage. There are
multiple things that could be done to address this in the display
system. Some were done but they need to do more. At times there seems
to be some confusion that the problem was an inherent limitation in
(Mode S) transponders - it was not. The sad thing is that all those
Mode S transponders work great with the TCAS/ACAS systems carried in
many aircraft even if the controllers displays are overloaded.

BTW for those interested the current AIP supplement for the Schiphol
TMA is at
http://www.ivw.nl/Images/EH-eSUP-09-...247-244610.pdf or see
http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/publi...Procedure.html
for some extra commentary.

Darryl

On Oct 11, 2:34*pm, Peter Purdie wrote:
Large areas of airspace are Class A-D reserved for IFR traffic under full
ATC control, to ensure Caommercial Air Trafic passenger safety.

Then you get low-cost carriers saving money by flying into small airports
without such airspace, and taking fuel-saving short cuts through
non-protected airspace.

The cost of installing transponders in EASAland is substantially greater
than the equipment cost due to excessive modification/certification fees.
I guess 'kd6veb' just screwed one in his Sparrowhawk and wired it up. *I
could do that to my glider, risk invalidating the insurance and attracting
legal action from the airworthiness police.

I would appreciate a logical reason why I should spend a high proportion
of the cost of my glider to protect the profits of a commercial
orgnisation.

You install one to protect yourself, protect the plane full of
innocent passengers, and protect the future of soaring in your
location. As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.

I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.

Darryl


At 20:55 11 October 2010, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, Peter Scholz
wrote:
Am 11.10.2010 20:17, kd6veb wrote:

Hi Gang
=A0 =A0I think this is scary and morally unjustified. How could 2
glide=
rs
be so close to an airport approach and not have operating
transponders
turned on? There has been much discussion of Flarm recently and
maybe
Flarm would be a useful device for all to have in glider
competitions
but Flarm is useless for GA. I guess it is going to take a midair
between a glider and a commercial airliner and the subsequent death
of
a couple of hundred people before reason is applied and transponders
mandated within 50 or so miles from all commercial airports.
Transponders are so cheap ($2500) and can easily be installed in any
glider (Don't give me any crap on that. I installed one on my
ultralight glider the SparrowHawk.) as to be something well past
discussion. I tried to push this concept of mandatory transponder
usage within 50 miles of a commercial airport with Pasco a couple of
years ago without success after the Minden midair collision between
a
business jet and a glider which had its transponder turned off. So I
guess it is going to have to take a bad accident to make it happen.
Dave

On Oct 11, 9:54 am, Karen =A0wrote:
Lessons to be learned?

http://avherald.com/h?article=3D4320f1c2

Join the discussion.

I happen to fly a lot in this area and know the situation quite well.
A
few things should be explained to perhaps better understand the
incident
report.

1. The Airport Frankfurt-Hahn is surrounded by a CTR (0/3500, Class D)
and two larger class D airspaces (3500/FL65 and 4500/FL65). Above FL65
and =A0surounding the Class D airspace is a Class E airspace (1000 or
1700AGL/FL100)

2. All glider pilots flying in that area (regularily a few hundred)
are
aware of the fact that they share the airspace with other commercial
(heavy) traffic. On the other hand, we have operate there, because
there
are only small corridors left between Class C and D airspaces
sourrounding Frankurt-Main International, Frankfurt HAhn and Cologne
airports. Also this area is a thermally high active area (Hunsr=FCck
ridge) and many XC flights go along there.

3. There are regular talks with the DFS (German ATC organisation)
about
the traffic situation in that area and how things can be handled so
that
safe operation of both the commercial flights and the glider
operations
can be carried out. These talks have led to the installation of
several
Glider sectors in the north and south corners within the
Frankfurt-Hahn
Class D airspace. These sectors can be opened generally in cooperation
with Frankfurt-Hahn ATC and FIS if and when traffic permits this, and
are normaly managed by the local glider clubs. =A0Also the situatuion
of
approaching traffic to Frankfurt Hahn has been and will be discussed.

4. Apart from that glider pilots can request individual clearances
from
FIS (e.g. during the week) for crossing of certain areas in the Class
D
airspace.This is normally granted, if and when traffic permits this.
Normlly, there is no transponder needed for this clearance, just
radion
contact with FIS will normally suffice.

5. There is NO transponder mandatory zone in that area, also no
transponder mandatory above 5000 ft for gliders in Airspace Class E!

6. It has been noted in the last few years, as the operations of Ryan
Air increased in Germany, that there have been several incidents
reports
like the one mentioned, especially from that specific carrier. We (the
glider community) suspect that Ryan Air tries to get more
"protected"
airspace by blaming the gliders operating in their vinciity, althouh
those glider pilots behave totally legal.

7. Nevertheless a glider pilot operating near Frankfurt Hahn is
strongly
advised (and I do this myself regularily) to inform FIS via radio
contact of his presence in taht area, so that traffic information can
be
passed on the the approaching traffic.

In conclusion: We (the XC glider pilots) are aware of the situation
and
operate accordingly. We expect the same of the commercial traffic
using
the Class E airspace, where also for IFR traffic the =A0rule "see and
be
seen" is to obey.

--
Peter Scholz
ASW24 JE

Of all the very well laid out points above (including the critical
point of working with the local ATC organizations) I would have hoped
to see a point about about glider pilots being "strongly advised" to
adopt transponders.

Unfortunately "see and avoid" alone as a traffic separation mechanism
between gliders and fast-jets/airliners ultimately comes down to
wishful thinking. Eventually the idea that see and avoid alone is
going to prevent a collision between airliners/fast jets and gliders
is going to just fail. And putting aside the little point of moral
responsibility to the airline passengers, what does the glider
community think is going to happen to soaring in their country/region
when an airliner does collide with a non-transponder equipped glider?

And this should not be a surprise to any of us. Gliders are just
exceedingly hard to see and airliner cockpits are very busy places.
The two just do not mix well.

Darryl

As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen
one jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if
I know the other is about. Transponders are essential if you want to
have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main
alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR
aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for
ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of
SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the
departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to
TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on
behalf of the 315 sitting behind us.
Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of
transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the
low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my
bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks.

As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach
carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.

I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.

Darryl

Hi Gang
My putting a transponder into a US ultralight glider (uncertified
flying machine with only an empty weight restriction of 155 pounds)
might have been a first. So how did I go about it? I called everyone I
knew at the FAA and told them what I proposed doing and why (to avoid
a possible mid air collision with an airliner in the Reno Nevada
area). They all told me, although no one would put it down in writing,
that it seemed a good idea and no one could find anything in the FAA
regs that specifically prohibited putting a transponder in an
ultralight. However in using a transponder in a US registered aircraft
requires that the transponder be certified initially and then every 2
years by an approved FAA mechanic/electrician. I said I would get that
approval and I did. Finally I invited a FAA inspector to come to
Minden and check out the installation and paperwork for the
certification. The comment by the inspector was "I wish more people
would be serious about safety as you apparently are".
I learnt a lot in these discussions about the subculture of the FAA
and how they approach problems. There is an underlying premise that if
it isn't specifically forbidden in the regs and rules then it is
permitted as long as people and property are not put in jeopardy.
Dave

On Oct 11, 4:10*pm, Russell Thorne wrote:
As both an avid glider pilot and also airline pilot, I have never seen
one *jet/glider from the point of view of the other, and I do look, if
I know the other is about. *Transponders are essential if you want to
have any chance of seeing the other at high speed. TCAS is my main
alerter, especially in the US, where I am amazed that that VFR
aircraft have such freedoms in busy airspace, may they continue for
ever. A case in point, last night while on a night departure out of
SFO on climb to 3000ft, there was a Cessna at 3500ft directly in the
departure path doing what he had every right to be doing. According to
TCAS, we passed directly underneath him , thank you TCAS, ATC and on
behalf of *the 315 sitting behind us.
Airlines, and especially Ryanair, will not finance any such fitment of
transponders in gliders, our salvation as glider pilots lies in the
low cost development of ADS-B. In the meantime, I'm off to organise my
bi-annual transponder and altimeter checks.

*As I've said I think it is entirely reasonable to approach

carriers like Ryanair with suggestions for them offsetting your
transponder costs (or take the tricky step of taking that battle
public... does the flying public have a right to know this?). Glider
organizations really need to think through whether to take on this
issue or not, if not when there is eventually a fatal mid-air
collision they just won't have a publicly defensible position. In
areas of high density airline and fast jets and glider traffic, doing
nothing looks to me like a very poor choice.

I know from outside the USA it looks like the whole place is run by a
bunch of cowboys, but I hate to ruin it for you... there is no "just
screwing in" of transponder in the USA. A certified glider requires at
least an IA/A&P sign-off or maybe a 337 field approval, an
experimental one may be done by the pilot. But in either case requires
a RF signal and pressure altimeter check after install and ongoing
biannual RF signal tests. Approved transponder test stations are very
unlikely to just sign off an inspection if they have any concerns
about the transponder install. But.. yes things here are much better
than the silly regulations EASA loads on glider owners in Europe.

Darryl



Russell thanks for adding your airline-pilot voice to this.

But you had me right up until the end point... I worry that waiting
for ADS-B is likely not the answer, and at worse a dangerous
distraction. ADS-B offers many interesting potential capabilities and
benefits but seeing ADS-B offered as an alternative to transponders as
a collision avoidance mechanism near airliners leaves me pretty
concerned.

And I'm awfully curious if your airliner is equipped today with TCAS
II with integrated ADS-B data-in/CDTI?

ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS
needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
data-in display of traffic at all.

There is no regulatory requirement for airlines or other aircraft to
equip with CDTI, and no regulation likely to happen anytime soon,
since standards are a bit liquid at the moment. Sure there are new
TCAS II systems available that provide CDTI capability, and I expect
some newer transport category aircraft to come so equipped but trying
to understand when a significant fraction of airliners or fast jets
will be so equipped has proven pretty frustrating. If you have an ADS-
B specialist in your airline who could talk about ADS-B data-in/CDTI
adoption plans I would love to talk to them.

As for low-cost, we'll have to wait and see but it may well work out
that the cheapest way to deploy ADS-B data-out is via a Mode S/1090ES
transponder, in which case you get full TCAS compatibility via the
transponder part. Costs may have more to do with market dynamics (like
European Mode S adoption requirements) and worldwide addressable
market vs. engineering a specific UAT product for a part of the USA
low-end GA market. Modern low-cost electronics, FPGAs, high speed CMOS
RF components etc. have also helped to significantly lower Mode S
transponder costs beyond what was probably expected when the FAA and
others started thinking about UAT technology vs. (then very) expensive
Mode S transponders.

Darryl

Darryl,

I found your fourth paragraph very confusing:

ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
its TCAS II system - something many pilots are not aware of. TCAS
needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
data-in display of traffic at all.

Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first
sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data-
out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only
achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a
TCAS system.

-John

On Oct 11, 6:50*pm, jcarlyle wrote:
Darryl,

I found your fourth paragraph very confusing:

ADS-B data-out in gliders will not provide an airliner with an RA from
its TCAS II system - something many *pilots are not aware of. TCAS
needs a transponder to interrogate to issue an RA. The whole topic
does not get talked about much because it is implicitly assumed that
threat aircraft have transponders or transponders *and* ADS-B data-
out. If your airline has fitted a modern TCAS II that includes ADS-B
data-in and CDTI then you will get traffic display of ADS-B data-out
equipped aircraft but no RA. And you may even have have TCAS II with
ADS-B data-in for TCAS "enhanced surveillance" but still no CDTI/ADS-B
data-in display of traffic at all.

Are you making an assumption here that the glider in the first
sentence is flying in the US and has a UAT setup to yield ADS-B data-
out? Because in Europe I'm almost positive that ADS-B out can only
achieved with 1090ES, which of course will indeed provide a RA from a
TCAS system.

-John

John thanks sorry if I confused things. Yes I was taking about the
USA, this thread flopped geographies several times, I had assumed that
Russell was also talking about the USA where ADS-B over UAT is a link
layer option, I'm not sure how else to understand Russell's comment
"our salvation as glider pilots lies in the low cost development of
ADS-B" [presumably as opposed to transponders which was the topic up
tot that point]. I also point out later in my post that Mode S with
1090ES data-out will indeed interoperate fully with TCAS II. But to be
really clear...

In Europe and most other places ADS-B will be over 1090ES only
(thankfully the European based work on VDL never ended up being
supported as a link layer for ADS-B). And as John points out since
those ADS-B data-out systems are also Mode S transponders they will be
fully compatible with TCAS II. And technically its possible to build a
1090ES data-out transmitter that does not implement transponder
functions, but nobody is doing that or announced any plans to do so,
but once you go to all that effort to do 1090ES data-out it might as
well be a full Mode S transponder.

Darryl

No-one seems to have commented on the report that the gliders in the
near miss were possibly near cloudbase. We all know that in
sailplanes height is everything and just about every soaring pilot
regularly ignores the regulations requiring minimum clearances from
cloud.

Maybe flying in Britain and South Africa desensitized me to this issue
- flying in clouds seemed quite normal in both places and even I had
one gyro instrument back in those days. However, I don't see any real
difference here in the USA - pilots routinely climb under clouds until
visibility gets fuzzy. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if
commercial aircraft get a shock to find gliders where they aren't
supposed to be, especially as they descend through cloud.

It's also my view that anyone flying a glider in an area of high
commercial traffic without a transponder is plain nuts. Mine was out
for repair for a few weeks and I got to count an awful lot of rivets
on airliners on approach to Tucson International - they pass right
over our gliderport. I even got to see passengers faces on one and I
don't think they were delighted to see me so close up!

I'll take all the electronic countermeasures I can get!

Mike